The invention relates to a device for dispensing and/or storing animal food.
In nature, a great many examples of symbiosis of different forms of organisms to their mutual benefit are to be found. Specifically, the evolution of man, and of human societies, is characterized, perhaps indeed dominated, by such symbiotic relationships. The very early hunter-and-gatherer societies must have profited by the indirect or direct proximity of canids. This proximity ultimately led to domestication, which became especially prevalent at the transition from hunter and gatherer to agricultural societies. With advancing differentiation of this reciprocal relationship between (domestic) animal and man, came a more extensive division of labor, which likewise imposed a duty of support on man vis-a-vis beast.
In recent decades, especially in the western industrialized countries, the relationship of man to his domestic animals has once more changed fundamentally. It is only quite rarely that domestic animals today are assigned tasks arising from their special nature or their original importance to man. This applies especially to dogs and cats. Instead, they have become members of the family, and playmates and companions rather than hunting assistants, guards or pest control agents.
Consequently, in the first place the requirements on animal feeding as such by the animal with respect to quantity and quality have changed, and secondly so have the requirements on the part of the owner of the animal. Central to all these considerations is man's duty to support the animals living in his community and the provision of appropriate living conditions.
In efforts to secure appropriate nourishment, heretofore essentially the quality of animal food has been in the foreground. Less attention has been paid to the shape or form in which animal food is dispensed, especially as regards the domesticated predators, the dog and cat.
For the feeding of dogs and cats, typically a dish, in the broadest sense, is employed, in which the food in question is placed. This food may be of highly various consistency, an effort being made to simulate the consistency of the food normally taken by the animals.
However, it cannot have escaped the expert animal harborer's notice that the dispensing of animal food in such form that the animal takes the food offered directly, i.e. from the dish, by no means does justice to the complex behavior involved in foraging for and ingesting food under natural conditions.
Not to enlarge here on the various models that have been developed in the literature to describe the behavior of animals, the principle of double quantification seems plausible for the description and perhaps even the understanding of animal behavior, in order to draw the appropriate conclusions as to the dispensing of animal food in particular.
The principle of double quantification states essentially that the execution of behavior patterns is dependent both on internal conditions, for example in the form of a preparedness to act, and also on external factors, i.e. stimuli, in the sense of triggers. When both factors are present, the behavior pattern in question can be observed. At the same time it is possible that for example in the presence of a strong internal condition, for example such that an action has not been performed over a considerable period of time, comparatively unimportant external factors, i.e. weak triggers, may suffice to cause the behavior pattern in question to be performed.
Applied to the food dish, this means that with the immediate presentation of food in the dish, a long series of behaviors on which the natural procurement of food by the animal is based are not performed. This leads to an intensified preparedness to act, which may then force its way into other modes of behavior, for example overshoot actions, which may ultimately be interpreted as the expression of inappropriate animal husbandry.
Another possibility of breaking down the animal's enhanced preparedness to act consists in that the same is referred to other objects. In the case of dogs, this may for example lead to operations on table legs or the like with the teeth.
To provide a suitable outlet for the modes of behavior described above, attempts have been made to offer food in a suitable form, for example as dog biscuits in the shape of bones. What is accomplished by the visual conformation of a dog biscuit in the shape of a bone is that certain visual stimuli (bone shape) that normally occur in the acquisition of food by the animal are offered under the conditions of domestication as well, and may thus in part satisfy the animal's needs. Other stimulating qualities such as for example tactile stimuli are reflected in the consistency of the bone biscuit. But here again, there is the disadvantage that processing of the food by the animal is very limited. Another disadvantage of such animal feeding, or the shape in which dispensed, may be seen in that not every qualitatively high-grade animal food can be offered in this form. Another point to be considered is that the urge to gnaw, i.e. the internal condition therefor, is very strong in the dog and cat specifically, which would mean that a correspondingly large quantity of such animal food would have to be fed. But this would lead to an imbalance between the animal's urge to chew on the one hand and the necessary supply of nutrition, with the result either that the animal would receive too much food, which is undesirable also from the point of view of proper animal husbandry, or else the gnawing urge would ultimately be unsatisfied.
Satisfaction of the urge to chew on the part of domestic animals, especially dogs, is the purpose of so-called gnawing-bones. A clear internal connection being normally made between chewing and the taking of nourishment, or supply of energy, such gnawing-bones are not in accord with proper animal husbandry, i.e. satisfaction of internal conditions and external practice, which as explained above underlie an acting-out of the corresponding behavior pattern. Although the urge to gnaw is satisfied, more far-reaching stimuli, such as for example tactile stimuli, flavors and odors, and the corresponding physiological reactions, are left out (salivation, production of digestive enzymes and the like). The close temporal correlation of such stimulus configurations as they occur in nature is absent. The corresponding situation therefore cannot be considered species-specific.